About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:31:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 5, San Francisco 5, California 2, Mr. Sullivan 1, Heinicke 1, Ferrill 1, Mark Solomon 1, David Chiu 1, Cheng 1, Mr. Reiskin 1, Brinkman 1, Cohen 1, Aamount 1, Sundowned 1, Chiu 1, Er Ka 1, Progms 1, Roadways 1, Southern California 1, Powerpoint 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    May 15, 2013
    8:00 - 8:30am PDT  

8:00am
time, no, i know that this is turning into a j, don't kick me off. i'm really going that way to mission. and it really speeds up her commute. she opts not to take bart in that instance. [speaker not understood]. that can be [speaker not understood] by her clipper card travel pattern. looking forward to this plan being informed by data. and then finally, i am excited and eager to talk about how this -- all of this vision is funded over the long term. i think that the sooner that we can have a road map towards funding this, the better off we'll all be in the long term. the sooner wee ellipsed with the case of how much this is all going to cost, the better we're going to be able to make the case to voters, to people who are neglecting to solicit taxes from development. all of these things that are on the table that really need to be funded have to be funded.
8:01am
and the sooner we have that conversation the better. so, looking forward to a finance plan as well that we can use to inform our conversations. >> [speaker not understood]. >> now that i'm done being stunned by the travel times where we are and where we want to get, i want to loop back to the first thing that mr. reiskin said, which is this is part of a requirement under regional planning, correct? we need to actually, as all the other counties have done, we need to identify those areas and we need to have a plan for how we're going to deal with population growth. so, this is something that's not just important for us to do, but it's also going to inform regional planning, correct? >> in the short term we can meet our planning requirements basically through our county transportation plan and by the projects we submit into the regional transportation plan.
8:02am
but those are really current projects. it's not really looking far down the road. so, we can technically meet those requirements, but in the end those currently identified projects are not going to meet the needs of the future. so, i hear the feedback that trying to think 50 years when we've got things to fix today is difficult -- >> he's more confident about his long term [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. we're talking about a 50 year plan, but i do feel like we kind of need to do both. i have no question, top priority is fixing the system today, but we captain kind of put off thinking for the five years it's going to take. i don't know that i have that long, but for the five years it's going to take to fix this system to put off what we're going to do in the future. so, i think we need to be able to do bet and wrap our minds
8:03am
around both. but i hear you loud and clear. the priority is fixing what we have now. ~ >> can we have colloquy now before i weigh in with the truth? [laughter] >> very good, very intimidating, too. i have a five-minute plan. i don't disagree with the long-term planning and i didn't say five years, i said, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. and, so, when your 50-year plan is build upon the existing network and improve service to existing customers, those are the first two bullet points the 50 year plan, those to me are items that can be 50 years out, but also need to be one to five years out. so, what i would say, this is sort of like one of our planning sessions, i would like to challenge you and your staff to be back at this board by the end -- before 2013 is over with four concrete ideas, changes, things that we can communicate to the public that will
8:04am
increase speed/capacity on our existing systems. we've talked about multi-train boarding in the downtown platforms. we talked about work on the duboce church point. we talked about closing market. there are things i believe in my heart that we can do, and that we must at least assess and try to do for the sake of the public confidence, if nothing else, to address these issues. and, so, i'm happy you have a 50-year plan. let's keep having a 50-year plan. but i think it's incumbent upon us to challenge you to now come back and say, if the first spoke of that task or that plan is to improve the existing network, i would like four things, concrete in 2013 that you're going to do to increase speed and capacity in our existing network. either buses, light rail, or both. >> here it goes, here it comes. [laughter] >> i didn't see this as an either/or thing at all. >> right. >> i think, actually, we wouldn't be doing our jo b that
8:05am
especially with these projectionses, these numbers, residents and jobs and all of that. i'm also thinking the two billboards on the bayshore you may have seen. one says one-third of everybody born to be will live to be 100. another said somebody reading this, somebody will live to be 150. so, i was kind of reading the [speaker not understood] maybe at 68, let's say. >> the truth on a bill board? >> i think it's the responsible thing to do. i certainly wouldn't want to see that in lieu, but i don't think there is anything in that. so, is there anyone from the public who wishes to address the board? >> mr. chairman [speaker not understood]. the only person who turned in a speaker card. can we do maybe three minutes on this? >> actually two minutes all the time. go ahead. another minute on the
8:06am
long-term future would have been nice. i appreciate the presentation and i appreciate the tip off that this item was coming. i think the context is not entirely clear here. it was sort of expressed a bit. but i'm not really sure the relationship to other plans and progms, if this assumes the t.e.p., the t.s.p., the entire existing communities strategy, the real estate vision, other thing that are ongoing. i mean, whether those things happen really informs whether we have the capacity in our yards, the facilities or other things to be able to deliver some of these suggested investments. it's difficult to assess the relative merit of some of these investments why the n and not the l. i'm sure there was some thinking behind that, but that
8:07am
wasn't clear articulated. and these priorities fundamentally are not balanced. i think there are some equity implications here, title 6 and otherwise, why continuing a downtown based system makes sense rather than a modified grid or, you know, facilitating more cross-town travel. and actually, somewhat inclined toward director heinicke's comments, not that we shouldn't have long term but we need to have near term projects that deliver some of these concerns. i would be happy to engage further with staff. i think this does need some more discussion with not just the cac, but a variety of present and past and future stakeholders. we should be talking to frankly the youth commission about
8:08am
this. >> thank you. this is the beginning of the conversation, of course, there will be plenty of opportunities as we go on. further opportunities for public comment. >> okay. mr. sullivan. good afternoon again, director mark solomon. working on the parking and the north mission we try to work with people who are very car focused on what true north is for transit. saying that if we take these steps we'll have transit for you and you can give up your car and it will be okay. but i have no north star to point them to saying this is where we need to go. this could be that but it's not quite there yet. in 50 years we'll have transporters and jet bags. we have video phones. we're on our way there. let's focus on next 10, 15 years here at the latest. t.e.p. is supposed to be to be this but it's been put on an anorexic diet. [speaker not understood]. we already spent 4 million on the t.e.p. it's been sundowned. [speaker not understood] there is no real push to make it happen. the 25-year plan is for the ta.
8:09am
it's currently having constituency saying give me this, give they this. there's no real vision, no coherent star that says this is where we want to go to make it so you can give up your car. 3.1 billion out of the billion needed for our current investment is funded forted 25 year plan. this is' almost a billion short. there is nothing for the greenhouse gas component upon which all this development zoning has been based. so, what we need to do is tell developers which [speaker not understood]. there is so much money behind those entitlements. you condition those to actually paying for it and the tsp, tsf doesn't get us to half of that amount. director brinkman, these are complicated systems. i don't know if anyone in this room is smart enough if we change a thing here, there aren't any deleterious effects. the c-e-q-a can get us so far. we celebrate on the 22, 23, 34 to bring us down around for the cross town and be able to get
8:10am
people around with the radio lines providing linkages there. that kind of investment will do t. i think we need to look at if you give us 10 billion, give us 20 billion, we can do this, this and that. and show folks just blue sky conversation as to what we can do with the resources will be the best way to get the resources. you may have poison the pot on central subways [speaker not understood]. it is an informed project that's out the door. if not something we can build upon [speaker not understood]. >> anyone else here to address the board? seeing none, [speaker not understood]. >> mr. chairman, that's all on your agenda today. >> we are adjourned. thank you all very much. [adjourned]
8:11am
good morning, everyone. welcome. to the regular meeting of the transportation authority, finance committee, i'm cohen and to my left is cheng and david chiu and mark ferrill will be joining us shortly. the clerk is erica cheng. er ka, are there any announcements today? >> no announcements. >> that is great, let's start with item number two. >> approve the minutes of the april 9, 2013 meeting this is an action item. >> all right. and members of the public that would like to talk about this item, seeing none. okay, this item is closed.
8:12am
no public comment and motion to approve. >> commissioner chiu, a motion without objection >> keep it going. >> madam clerk, item three. >> state and federal legislative update and information/action item. >> excellent, good morning. >> a few things to brief you on, today is the day that we have been waiting for several months, the governor in the next hour will be announcing the revisions to the state budget and there is quite a bit in play for the transportation and i will get into that deeper into the presentation and i want to talk about a few bills on the matrix today. and a couple of changes and a couple of additions and otherwise, it is a fairly static point in time for legislation. and the first draw your attention to is ab 266. and i didn't note what page that is on. and i think that it is on page
8:13am
seven. >> yes, thank you. >> and we can recommending a move from oppose to watch and this is the measure that dealt with the access to hiv and car pool lanes, and it was moved ided a ten-year extension and revised the bill back to a 346 year extensfor plug in hybrids and a five year extension for cng and going to a watch position. it would provide on page 4 of your matrix would have provided a sales tax for a sustain able community strategy purposes within an npo region. sales tax is the bread and butter for san francisco and
8:14am
having made it available to other entity and even though they may be aligned with our interest, raised the question in our minds and we were recommending opposed position, that bill has become a two-year bill and did run into some concerns, expressed throughout this region in particular, and in southern california and so he has put it over to next year which point he will have to the month of january to fix the bill and move forward. >> we are recommending opposed. measure, ab 1371, on page 12. deals with a measure that was vetoed last year and mixed improvements and pertains to safe passing zones for bicyclists mandate that they will provide a three foot space. under certain conditions and we are recommending watch for that to see how the administration deals with that and we may come back with a different position. >> is there any indication on
8:15am
what the administration is thinking or have they... >> it was a little tighter drawn last year's version of the bill and it raised the concern with the law enforcement that it was going to be tough to enforce and i think that the author is trying to come up with a mix that will allow bicyclists to have that free passage. but do it in a way that does not interfere with the law enforcement ability to understand what is going on. >> so we will watch that one. >> yes. >> the last measure that i want to draw to your attention is ab 935. and that is found on page 8. and i believe, i forget, we recommended a support. i believe that we have. the reason that i want to raise this and bring it to your attention, this is the attempt ad expanding the weda board from five members to seven and in doing so, he has added, kind
8:16am
of a unique appointment process. and in each case there are three appointing authorities, the governor, has three slots, and the protem would have two and the speaker would have two and in each case he is designating particular counties including san francisco, adding salono and contra costo to the board. for san francisco you would have the appointing power with the governor. but based on a list of three provided by this board, to the governor's office. and that is the theme for all of the appointments that would have or would be made from local government entities. the governor has two other positions that he can fill, one in labor and one in large. but the other two appointing authorities would be limited to selections from the respective county, transportation authorities that are designated to them.
8:17am
the sensitivity here is that there has been concern in the mayor's office about who in san francisco would provide the nomination list. so i just wanted to make sure that you were aware that this bill is moving through the process. three things that i wanted to update you on that are policy oriented outside of the legislation matrix. cap and trade and this is something that has been unfolding for about a year and a half and auctions have been conducted and revenues have flowed in not quite at the level that were projected a year ago, last year two major bills were signed by the governor that provide the framework for how the auction revenues will be invested to benefit california. and last year, ab 1532 established a process, and sb 535 set aside up to 25 percent for disadvantaged communities. and today, the governor in compliance will be taking the draft investment plan that had been provided and developed by
8:18am
the i using that as a framework for proposing allocations to a variety of agencies who will then, i believe will have to see the details and made a revetion today and who i believe will have line item appropriations proposed by the governor that those entities like the transportation commission, for example, or possibly housing and community development will have the responsibility to provide grants to recipient entities like the city and county of san francisco or the ta or to the mtc and so that process is under way right now. there are two bills in progress, this year. and that were recommending the watch on that were tempt and enhance or modify that process. the first is ab 574 which is on page 5, it is a watch position. and i think that the true value of ab 574 to date has been to
8:19am
help support the rationale that the air resources board adopted for several of the major expenditures categories, including, investments in transit, and investments in rail as being eligible for the cap and trade funding and mfk it goes broader and allows more investment in highway and maintenance that are affiliated with the infield development and providing the certain infrastructure that is needed for infield development. a second measure, ab 1051, on page 9, would also seek to delegate or direct subject to future appropriations but some of the auction proceeds to housing development, consistent with the sustain able community strategies so there is a lot in play and a lot of the big questions about how this is going to be implemented and what the governor's real intentions and where he wants to see the money go will be answered in the next hour and we will be able to dissect what
8:20am
flexibility there may be for the entities like the mtc or the ta to compete for some of those funds. >> i wanted to mention briefly that the governor in january called on the secretary of transportation to form or to address the transportation funding i guess almost crisis that we are looking at in the state both in the state and the roadways and the local roadways and the public transit and the operations and maintenance areas. he asked the secretary to convene a working group, that was done, and their first meeting of that working group met in early april and i am pleased to say that i am on it and there is probably about 40 total representatives and stake holders on it. procedurally, just to make this quick, the approach is to divide, the working group into
8:21am
four subgroups, active transportation, mass transit, roadways, local roads, and state highways. and those subgroups will all be taking a look at what are some of the priorities within the shortfall that we know exists for each of those four category and come up with recommendations. i was selected to be on the mass transit committee and so i have participated in the first meeting of that. that was more of a scene setting and the real working session will be the next meeting and the game plan will be for the secretary to pull together a final report in the fall for informing the budget process in 2014. and finally, there are two measures very similar like that, i can't find the difference between them although it will be that there is, one on each house, ab and 8, sb 11 that would extend the program for clean air, programs, as well as the ab 118 program which is dedicated to alternative fuels. and those are due to expire in 2016 and this extends it ten
8:22am
years for both programs and including the revenues that would be needed to sustain them. >> is there any opposition to that extension? >> not direct opposition. even though there is no direct opposition, they are still having a hard time because in both cases, they are tax increases, and when those programs first passed it proceeded prop 26 and they were considered fees and that definitional change has made it more difficult for the legislature to come to grips with. i think that both bills will manage in the next couple of weeks to get out of their original houses, but at that point, i think that we will see, the end game for both of these bills will be very difficult given that they are being tagged with the two billion dollar ten-year tax increase, price tag, obviously the programs is important in this region for some of the program and projects that the ta is involved with. and so we are very actively involved trying to get this thing through. both bills will be are either
8:23am
on suspense and due to be released next week. that concludes my report for today. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues, do any of you have any questions? >> no. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this item this informational item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i am sorry. we have one, woman coming up for public comment. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is jakie sacks and i am a member of the (inaudible) advisory and i have one question for this gentleman, what about prop 42, the state gas tax that was passed by the voters? what is going to happen to that money and are we getting any that have money back or any of that money going to be used for transit, i was curious about
8:24am
that. hat is a complicated question, but the simple answer is proposition 42 was unfunded. it had been funded by the sales tax on gas, and in 2009 and later in 2010, the legislature eliminated gasoline or the sales tax from gasoline and in place of that, increased the gas tax by a like aamount. and that allowed it to do some other maneuver and in essence the same amount of what had been collected under prop 42 is continuing to be collected at the pump from motorists with no change it is a net neutral impact and it just provided the budget folks more flexibility. >> thank you. >> and one last qualification i mentioned that 935, the bill, it is a wash not a support. >> thank you. >> are there any members of the public that would like to further comment on this item?
8:25am
>> all right, public comment is closed. colleagues seeing that there are know other questions, is there a motion for this item? >> commissioner tang has made a motion, without objection. all right. please call up item number four madam clerk. >> internal accounting report and investment report for the nine months ending mar 31, 2013, this is an information item. >> good morning, deputy director for finance and administration, this starts on page 25 of your packet and this is nine-month update of the authority's financial status petition. as of march 34st, total asset, 122.5 million. liabilities 163.8 million and also includes the 150 million of outstanding commercial paper on the books. revenues to 95.8 million, sales
8:26am
tax to 61.5 million and this is on target to our estimate of 84.5 million for the entire year. expenditures equal to 62.5 million as of march 31st and our cash balance 74 million and this represents approximately 76 percent of the money we have holding in the city and county's treasury pool. and in addition these investments are in compliance with the california government code and authority's investment policy and the money in the bank provides liquidity for the expenses that we plan to incur over the next six months, this is an information item and more than happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> are there any questions colleagues? >> no. >> so based on your presentation, are we on track our expenditures have not exceeded our revenue? >> that our expenditure have not exceeded our revenue, as of
8:27am
march 31, 2013 and right now under budget as of march 31, 2013 as well. we have one quarter to go. >> are we looking good? >> looking good so far. >> thank you, are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this item? >> okay, see no public comment, public comment is closed. and this is an information item, so no motion is needed unless staff would like to provide any other direction? okay. perfect. do we have a motion? >> to file? >> thank you, commissioner tang, a motion without objection. okay, madam clerk could you call number five? >> preliminary fiscal year, 2013, 14, annual budget and work program, information item. >> thank you. >> this item starts on page 45 of your packet and we have a powerpoint presentation for you and i will be presenting the
8:28am
first part and our interim director will present the second part which will include the authority's work program for the year. if you could take a look at your presentation. as required by state statutes, authority must adopt a budget by june 30, 2013, this is the first look at the budget and this is the prelim budget and you will see this again at the june finance committee for approval. the annual budget includes 7 key items we have our sales tax revenue, vehicle registration revenue and transportation for clean air, federal state and regional grant, capitol expenditures operatesing and administrative cost and financing and debt service cost. within your packet, on page 49, you have attachment a, it is the preliminary fiscal year 2013/14 annual budget and this is the high level executive view by major line items and funds. this is in addition there is a
8:29am
column that compares what we adopted as last year's budgeted amounts. on page 50 you have attachment d. >> i am sorry you said 49 there is a column that indicates? >> the prior year. yes, the change from last year it is adopted by this and actually includes the amendment that was passed last month. >> thank you. >> page 50 you have attachment 8 which is the authority to work program throughout the six divisions. this willis all functions and project and programs that we planned to work on in the fiscal year for 2013/14. you have attachment c and this is your detailed line item version of attachment a and this is where the revenues are broken out by federal, state and regional and they are listed by detailed line items and on page 62, do you have the line item descriptions for each item. this is a dripsing of a background on each of the items in addition to how we came up
8:30am
with the estimates. >> next, i have a pie chart for you for the total of revenues for the fiscal year. and we are expecting total revenues of 109.9 million. and the majority of the revenues that you can see in blue are for sales tax and that is $88.3 million and this represents $84.4 percent of the entire revenues in red you have the federal grant funding of 10.5 million and represents 9.6 percent and the majority of funding here is for the ybi improvement project and entering into the construction phase and in the green color you have the vehicle registration fees are the program and it is very similar to what we received in the fiscal year 1213. and 4.7 million and this represents 4.3 percent of the revenues for the year. and in the purple you have other revenues of 2.7 million and this represents 2.3 percent. and the other revenues